pouët.net

Correct.

I noticed that there's some specific MSX2+ demos.

For database consultation i think this is the best option.

i agree that with split categories you can make more powerful searches. i agree even more with the idea to make "multi-level" platforms, so we can have the best of both worlds. even if it means more work for gloperators, i'd be happy to do that actually.

but at the same time i am wondering what the broader implications of this will be. or at least until the multi-level thing is implemented. for example, i personally think the msx category isn't big enough for a split. but you clearly do, so i wonder what your opinion is regarding other categories that may face the wonderswan horror scenario. two examples:

1- the bbc category. i've been searching for more stuff for some time now, and my current guess is that it will be hard to get this category over 20 entries total. the problem is, the prods i've found are made for bbc b, bbc master, and acorn electron (which are all kind of compatible, but not quite, somewhat similar to msx). i don't think splitting would be a wise thing to do right now... or even when those 20 prods are in the list. what's your take?

2- msdos/windows. these categories are so huge that i fear having to sort it all out for 8088/86/286/386/486 etc etc, or whatever other splitting scheme one could theoretically apply to it (gfxcards?). also, especially some older technologies are used by only very few demos (EGA jumps to mind). so even here the wonderswan kindof lurks around. again, opinion appreciated :)

(my hope ofcourse is to get some consensus on what should be split and what not, hopefully resulting in a rule of thumb we could apply to future cases to avoid discussion)

I think the WonderSwan or Pokemon and co. categories are legitimate.

I regard the categorisation of all those obsolete machines entries as some sort of historical testimony of a certain savoir-faire which should be presented in the same way the computer history was going in every direction in the 80's and put into the right perspective.

I'm not even against creating separate categories for oscilloscopes or microchips as i've seen there's some demos for that too, i don't know if people will be lost or not by a supposedly overwhelming number of those categories, i personally would be quite interested or even dazzled to see the full extend of the demoscene power and what remote technology it's imagery developed through the years can reach.

Now, a sub-categories could be quite convenient.

3

ok, so we agree that the multilevel thing is the best solution, once implemented.

what i don't understand is why you propose to split up msx before this is implemented. if you advocate that step, i assume you would also support splitting up msdos and windows as soon as possible? all the arguments you make seem to support this view, correct me if i'm wrong...

well, in a way it is better if its already split, would save recategorization work later on...

hitch categorized the whole bunch in 30 minutes or thereabouts, i'd be happy to overtake that job the next time it's necessary (ie. when the multilevel thing is implemented).

i still don't understand why msx must be split before bigger categories like msdos and windows get the same treatment. especially since categorization completely mismatches with the attittude of msx sceners. the searchability argument applies to both categories equally, imho.

also, all msx stuff runs in the same emulator, so there is no practical need for categorization really

damn it, almost had it -_-

i'm sorry to be such a bitch about this, ps (and also hitch..)...

please understand, i am not in this debate for my personal entertainment. it really hurts having to disagree with people whom i respect a lot, like you guys. but msx was my first love, i know a lot of msx ppl, and this decision just feels wrong, no matter how i try to look at it.

some time ago, when i started adding some msx stuff on pouet, i had basically exactly the same debate with a bunch of msx people. i started by arguing what you are arguing now, but if 1 atari guy says A about msx, and 15 msx guys say B, well... who am i to argue with that?

once again, i know i've been a bitch about this topic. i really don't feel like making the battle drag on any longer, and i hope we can find a solution that is acceptable to everyone. especially hitch- dude, seriously, i respect you, your work, and your technical expertise a lot... and you make a helluva lot of valid points, no doubt about that... but please, try placing yourself for one moment in the shoes of a party-organiser who tries to get msx-ers to his event (me). i honestly tried to raise all valid arguments i know to prevent a thing from happening that i know will have an adverse effect on "the bigger scheme of things". in the end, we disagree about only 1 tiny thing: the exact timing of the implementation of the split, ie. before or after implementation of that multilevel platform concept. could you please, please, please reconsider if this is important enough an issue to insist on?

its cool, i just wish there was an easy way out :)

What kind of argument is that ? Same could be said for the Atari ST or Amiga categories :D



I'm not sure to understand your point here but having one big "throw away category" for all MSX stuff may not be a good way to show some interest toward these machines.

Will this multilevel platform concept even be implemented at all ?

Btw, we don't hear much from these MSX sceners around here.

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention for a bit ;)

I'll be happy with three (3) seperate MSX entities on pouët:

MSX
MSX2/2+
MSX turbo R

Actually I'm happy MSX is present here at all ;)

haohmaru: t maakt nu niet veel meer uit, helaas. kom anders ff op irc, hier zitten luistervinken.

updated stuff. now we have 3 categories:
MSX, MSX 2 and MSX Turbo-R
missing icon for turbo-r
msx2+ will get its own category sometime in a near future when there is:
- an icon
- a fix for the + platform links b0rked
- a revised pouet db scheme of platforms clustering subplatforms